Greetings,

Single Payer healthcare or a National System is most needed in our beautiful country, the USA. I meet many good, honest, and hard working Americans that do not get Health Insurance through their employers, and are not eligeable to get health insurance on their own, either because they have a pre-existing condition, which private health insurance companies will not insure, or these people just flat out cant afford the high premiums and high deductibles of todays current health insurance costs. I respect your opinions on your site, but when I think about all these good Americans that cant get health insurance, I completely disagree with you. We need some kind of fix to our expensive Health Insurance system, and many doctors and other health care professionals agree. Health Insurance companies, and especially pharmaceutical companies are a main cause of the inflated prices. Health insurance premiums are ever increasing and go up more than inflation every year. Private insurance companies are allowed to cherry pick who they accept onto their plans, because of underwriting.

I am aware that most states have high risk pools for those people that have been turned down by private insurers, or with people that have pre-existing conditions. The montly costs for these high risk pool plans are astronomical and most Americans cant afford the super high premium costs. These are just some of the many credible, hard outlying facts of why we need a true national healthcare system.

Many good Americans need equal and affordable, access to healthcare. I stress the word affordable.

Thank you for your time, my fellow American. I ask you and anyone who reads this to have a caring heart towards the many millions of Americans who are uninsured for various good reasons, or who are underinsured. Our healthcare and health insurance system must be fixed and it will be in the future.

God Bless.
Jesse S.

I recommend all readers to read and check out http://www.healthcare-now.com They are an organization that is pushing and lobbying congress to pass a true Nationwide Healthcare system, and the taxes on each American for it are very low. Judge for yourself whether or not a true national healthcare system is good after reading this site.

Nothing is free, of course.

The argument over which system is “best” is a complicated one. How do you measure this? Are you talking about the “typical” care someone would expect to receive in either system? If this idea of “best” was clearly definable, then there would be no argument!

Take me, for instance. I basically have no preventative health care in the US right now. I work full time, but the company I work for is a small one. They don’t pay me much either. I took out a high deductible insurance policy, even tough I have a math degree and understand statistics. It was about all I could afford on my salary. I don’t go to the doctor, even if sick. I recently had a concussion and I hurt my shoulder. I just stayed in bed.

So, in effect I have no preventative care in the US. Clearly, for me, I would have “better” preventative care in the UK or Canada.

Assume we cede the dispute over which is “better”, and assume the insurance mediated free market system is “best”. The next question is more a sociological/moral one. How important is the idea of “equality of distribution” as applied to health care? What if, on “average” (however that is measured), we all had to accept WORSE care, but… everyone got that care. In other words, does the question about health care involve more than an “economic” answer?

After all, there is a very good analogy here… education. If education were left to the free market, there no doubt would spring up some really excellent schools out there. Rich people would send their kids there. Other, cheaper schools, with inferior teachers and resources would sprout up for those less fortunate. The really poor simply wouldn’t send their kids to school at all. They wouldn’t be able to afford it.

Collectively, we as a society recognized there were other considerations than the free market, quality of goods, and economic efficiency. In this case we recognized the importance of “opportunity” and an “equality of distribution”. Some people call this “positive liberty”, as contrasted with “negative liberty”.

I’m certainly not a socialist or an advocate of communism. There exist no ideologically “pure” economies in the world today. All economies are effectively “mixed” economies to one degree or another. Any economics major can tell you all about trade offs. Well, the question we have to answer as a society is… is making health care available to all worth the trade off? Because, of course, nothing is ever free.